EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-230/16: Action brought on 11 May 2016 – C & J Clark International v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0230

62016TN0230

May 11, 2016
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

18.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/42

(Case T-230/16)

(2016/C 260/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: C & J Clark International Ltd (Somerset, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and J. Charles, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Declare the application admissible;

Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223 of 17 February 2016 establishing a procedure for assessing certain market economy treatment and individual treatment claims made by exporting producers from China and Vietnam, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14; and

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated the principle of conferral under Articles 5(1) and 5(2) TEU by proceeding on an incorrect legal basis;

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated Article 266 TFEU by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in C & J Clark International, C-659/13 and C-34/14, EU:C:2016:74;

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated Articles 5(1) and 5(4) TEU by adopting an act that exceeds what is necessary to achieve its objective; and

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misused its powers by using its competences for a purpose other than that for which they were conferred upon it.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia